VERSUS back on DTV / FCC closes CSN Loophole

comcast sportsnet chicago is another example. Owned 20% by Comcast, as well as 20% each by the Bulls, Blackhawks, White Sox, & Cubs, theres no way in hell they would let a csnphilly be broadcasted. all these " CSN's" are really joint ventures with local sports teams. philly 2/3rds is comcast owned and 1/3 by the phillies. but the whole fiasco between CSN california and CSN bay almost went to the courts.

it is Comcast's right to treat their transplanted Philly customers in a manner that is unequal to Comcast's transplanted customers coming from every other city in the country.

it is my right to hold the opinion that a company like that should treat all of their customers equally.

and to call them out when they don't.

you want to say it's 'good business', that is your right.

I didn't twist **** dude. Your opinion is just dumb.

Your opinion is that a publicly owned and traded company should willfully **** itself out of 450,000 customers, and in the process devalue the investment of all their shareholders.

Your problem is that you have NO ANSWER to the question I posed...which is how you end up at a BS response about me "twisting" it. Sure, they could hook up those "transplanted Philly customers" -- who can watch EVERY SINGLE FLYERS GAME wherever they are -- but it would cost them approximately $45M a month in revenue. Seriously, would you as a shareholder accept a company giving up $45M a month in revenue for no good reason?

Your certainly right that it's your right to hold to a ridiculous opinion, just as its my right to call out that what you're saying is dumb.

no you cannot. its like local channels with DTV... if i wanted philly local news channels i cant get it with DTV or cable. the trick to getting local channels would be if you registered your satellite in that specific area. i had a friend who did that to get WPVI channel 6 in philadelphia. it all has to do with the market and who had the rights. here is a perfect example....

people who live in cleveland tennessee you would think should be able to see the titans. but they are forced to see the falcons play. why? geographically atlanta is the dominant market. even tho they are both on fox on sunday. it is that affiliate in that market that wins out.

Ah, you can get the regional sports networks on DTV, but they blackout the actual games (unless its the in market game).

I can't imagine that that's possibly true. You're telling me that I can get any of Comcast's RSNs (with the one exception) in any location in the US via any cable provider? And, pray tell, what loophole is Comcast using to get out of broadcasting CSN-P on this one?

Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast.

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options = unequal treatment.

Actually, no, Bernie, the issue has not always been that. You're conveniently changing your story. There are about a hundred examples in the other thread where you keep on referencing Comcast customers who also have satellite:

and that argument has changed, because people like you kept saying 'why should comcast care about people who also have DTV'
as if comcast should treat a customer worse for subscribing to both companies

[Ford finds out you also own a Cevy & therefore treats you worse than 'all Ford' customers]

so, I eliminated the part about being a customer of another company, it's not needed to prove my point:

a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in his new city

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast. can you understand this??

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options [being able to still get access to his old town's CSN via competitors]

=

unequal treatment.

at this point, the customers are ONLY comcast customers & you can clearly see that the 2 groups are treated unequally. moving forward, one group has options to additionally subscribe to a competitor of comcast, and get their old home town CSN. and when they do so, Comcast does NOT penalize them.

no, dude, your approval of Comcast treating their own customers unequally is dumb.

Hey, Bernie, look around. If I'm dumb, then everyone but you is dumb. May want to pause and think about that one for a moment.

So far we've established the following:

1) You can't determine the difference between a customer of Company A, and Company B with regard to what product they are purchasing.

2) You don't grasp basic economic principles that are the foundation of business in the United States of America.

Quote:

My opinion is that a publicly owned and traded company oughtta treat all of it's customers equally.

Yes, by devaluing their shareholders investments. Which you have not addressed, because your opinion is so vapid and devoid of any logical reasoning that you're incapable of addressing that point. Your opinion is that Comcast should **** people's retirement funds so that John Doe can watch a hockey game on his preferred network as opposed to the one he can already get.

Which begs the question, Bernie, why do you hate everyone's mutual fund accounts?

Quote:

and when they don't - in order to turn a buck, the customers / public / FCC will call them out on it.

So that DirecTV, etc. can turn a buck by taking advantage of Comcast's programming.

My God, you're such a hypocrite.

But, more to the point, fine, the FCC is making 'em do it and it is going to hurt all of Comcast's shareholders (a lot of ordinary people with their retirement funds invested either directly or through mutual funds). However, that isn't the Comcast execs fault, so the shareholders can't hold them accountable for it...and, more to the point, Comcast has been serving their shareholders throughout this entire process.

Exactly as they should. Cuz, ya know what Bernie, when execs F over their shareholders they lose their jobs and can possibly go to jail.

However, I guarantee you Comcast's CEO loses his job at the shareholders meeting if he goes before 'em and says, "Yeah, we gave away 450,000 customers to our competitors so that transplanted Philadelphians could watch the local broadcast of games."

Shareholder Q: Couldn't they watch every Flyer game on Center Ice already?

CEO A: Yes, but people were whining that they couldn't watch the local broadcast, and while, yes, we're a for-profit business, we decided to appease them.

sorry, Jest .... the vast majority of consumers agree with me [as does the FCC] that companies should treat all of their customers equally.

eventually the courts will force Comcast to [as much as they'd rather make more money by treating certain customers unequally]

it's just a matter of time

You realize: hey, we should have CSN-P!

Is different from: Comcast is a bunch of dicks behaving in a way they should not be!

right?

Moreover, this entire discussion has nothing to do with what consumers are saying. It's the interaction of corporate lobbyists (DirecTV!) and a government regulation committee that is absolutely awash in lobby dollars.

Did consumers vote for this? No. A change in political power occurred, and VOILA they change the regulation.

However, I guarantee you Comcast's CEO loses his job at the shareholders meeting if he goes before 'em and says, "Yeah, we gave away 450,000 customers to our competitors so that transplanted Philadelphians could watch the local broadcast of games."

CEO A: Yes, but people were whining that they couldn't watch the local broadcast, and while, yes, we're a for-profit business, we decided to appease them.

and that argument has changed, because people like you kept saying 'why should comcast care about people who also have DTV'
as if comcast should treat a customer worse for subscribing to both companies

[Ford finds out you also own a Cevy & therefore treats you worse than 'all Ford' customers]

so, I eliminated the part about being a customer of another company, it's not needed to prove my point:

a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in his new city

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast. can you understand this??

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options [being able to still get access to his old town's CSN via competitors]

=

unequal treatment.

at this point, the customers are ONLY comcast customers & you can clearly see that the 2 groups are treated unequally. moving forward, one group has options to additionally subscribe to a competitor of comcast, and get their old home town CSN. and when they do so, Comcast does NOT penalize them.

it's a new 'hybrid' argument that you cannot refute.

A Comcast customer lives in Region A and gets the Comcast CSN that is affiliated with Region A. That Comcast customer then moves to Region B and gets the CSN affiliation with Region B.

Just like a BRAND CABLE customer living in Region A gets the FOX SportsNet affiliated with Region A. That BRAND CABLE customer moves to Region B and gets the FOX SportsNet affiliated with Region B.

I don't see any unequal treatment there.

The vast majority of people within a particular region tend to have similar likes and dislikes when it comes to a niche channel like an RSN. But you think it's Comcast's duty to cater to the minority and the lowest common denominator, without considering whether it's fiscally beneficial to the cable company, or whether their regional infrastructure can handle the bandwidth of adding the additional channels of which those regional customers - the vast majority - may not be interested in.

Also, Bernie, I am a licensed professional engineer. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from talking to me like I'm a 6 year old, especially when you can't separate your emotional opinions from logic.

what you are [probably intentionally] deciding to ignore is that he is affiliated with COMCAST, Mr. Professional Engineer.

and if Region A = Philly then he is not treated the same as another Comcast customer who moves from region C [DC] to region B.

when Comcast customer #1 gets to region B, he DOES NOT have chance to continue to watch CSN from his home town.

when Comcast customer #2 gets to region B, he DOES have the chance to continue to watch CSN from his home town.

who makes them unequal? COMCAST .... [who both are affiliated with]

I don't care what type of train you drive, anybody can understand this.
even 6 year old engineers.

that's whole point: the FCC says just because you move, you are not supposed to forfeit your right to still watch your home town RSN.

Since you've made it BLATANTLY clear that we're OBVIOUSLY not talking about SATELLITE at ALL, you're saying a Comcast customer with Comcast cable in DC who moves to Chicago can still get CSN-DC on Comcast?

and me working for charter has to to with klnowledge of how MSO or multiple system operators wor, and franch limitations.

think for one minute. if you can get every regional sports channel what would be the point in them selling the center ice package?

I responded to you above, but I'll re-respond just so you can be clear in dealing with Bernie. They can get the RSNs, but they blackout all the actual games. So you could watch pre- and post-game shows, and whatever else...but not what you really want to be watching.

the whole point of this conversation is to be able to watch other teams out of markey is it not? why would you want to watch other regional sportsnetworks othen for that reason?

or this an arguement of semantics lol

His argument makes no sense for a variety of reasons.

But a few key elements:

1) He's committing fraud with regard to DirecTV and that drives a lot of this.

2) His primary problem appears to be Comcast customers (out of Philadelphia) who purchase DirecTV with the intention of (I assume) committing fraud and claiming a Philly address to get CSN-P over DirecTV.

3) Then you have the issue of CSN-P being available on Center Ice, which, of course, it normally isn't as of now.

4) On top of that, Comcast was doing something terribly wrong in protecting their own business interests, and not helping DirecTV compete with them in Philadelphia.

1) He's committing fraud with regard to DirecTV and that drives a lot of this.

2) His primary problem appears to be Comcast customers (out of Philadelphia) who purchase DirecTV with the intention of (I assume) committing fraud and claiming a Philly address to get CSN-P over DirecTV.

3) Then you have the issue of CSN-P being available on Center Ice, which, of course, it normally isn't as of now.

4) On top of that, Comcast was doing something terribly wrong in protecting their own business interests, and not helping DirecTV compete with them in Philadelphia.

You forgot the part about how screwed over all those Philadelphia transplants are for not being able to watch SportsRise with Ron Burke and Daily News Live with Michael Barkaan.

Seriously, aside from the SportsRise/Nite programs and DNL, you can get all the local games through packages, and most all of the other CSN programming is the same (i.e. ATP Tennis, college football) no matter what RSN you have.